atlas o realistic main line curve radius

Also I have all scale cars sooo quite a bit of 89' cars things like that that's also why I am concerned

Figured you already had a layout up and running.  Didn't you buy Atlas Track from a forum member about this time last year? Anyway 89' will look better running on 090. A lot depends on the dimensions of the room.

As well you should be.    I seem to be in somewhat of a minority... either that or there are just a very vocal minority here who disagree with me... 

 

But I personally prefer the larger length O-scale cars like 89' auto racks, 86' auto parts box cars, and 21" passenger cars on nothing less than O-108... and quite candidly, O-120 would look even better.

 

Now I realize we all don't have the luxury of such broad radii curves, but that doesn't change the fact the trains of these longer cars just "look better" on those kind of curves.  The fact that Lionel tells us some of these monster cars CAN be run on O-54 doesn't mean they SHOULD.

 

So I'd recommend the largest curve radius that your room can handle for your 89-footers.

 

David

60 inch radius track (O-120) is normal for 2-rail modelers running large scale equipment. It really does take a large curve to make scale length equipment look realistic.  Even O-120 is very sharp for a real railroad.  Always try to build your layout with the largest curve that will possibly fit.

 

Joe

I run the long cars also, on 120 curves and I think that is way to small.

 

Clem k

Consider using 072 where you can hide the curve(s) with furniture, plants, etc. and use very large radius for those curves which you can't/don't want to hide.

 

 

Assuming you set up where one side is closer to the viewer than the other side of the room, you can use the largest curve possible close to the viewer and cheat down to 0-72 on the distant curves. 

I posted this a few weeks back in regard to radius and passenger cars.

" My engineer buddy John Johnson explained to me some easy math regarding our tight turns to run railroads in a relatively small space.

Reality a 16 degree minimum on the Union Pacific used on reversing Y's just for example. Slightly tight for mainline use is in o scale 2 rail an equivalent is 90" radius.

Some 3 rail figures compared to 2 rail.

O-108 Diameter
54" radius

O-72 Diameter (full circumference)
36" radius in 2 rail from center point to edge

O-120 minimum to run my new Key FT's are 60" radius.

I hope that makes sense and yes to most review."

There was a forum post on what O gauge curve would realistically depict Horseshoe Curve, a relatively sharp mainline curve.  Worked out to be close to O-480 (40').  So if you want to be truly scale, you need a really big area for your layout.

Pretty subjective and opinion based with what "appears" correct.    I would suggest going to You Tube and checking out operating layouts that state the radius curves to suit your preference.

 

On my You Tube videos,  the early videos with Lionel tubular trace are 0-72.  The later videos are now the current run state of Atlas O 0-91.  (You Tube name NativeFLA) https://www.youtube.com/user/NativeFLA/videos   Most recent with the new wider tracker starts about 3 years ago with the Atlantic Coast Line passenger train.

 

Realistic on 0-91?   Certainly more than the 0-72 but it is still a compromise,  we are running three rails so reality sets in.  Toy trains that look somewhat realistic with a huge coupler and middle rail!

 

Enjoy whatever you end up with............  bigger is better in this case though

 

Mark

Agree with all of the above; i.e., the larger curves are better, and seldom is there enough room to come close in 1:48 scale to the real 1:1 scale.

 

"A radius of 574 feet is quite common in the USA, 410 feet radius is nothing unusual, and the tightest curves in the network have a radius of 288 feet." (Google search)

 

574 feet radius = (574 x 12 x 2 / 48 =) 287 inches diameter 1:48 scale (almost 24 feet)

410 feet radius = (410 x 12 x 2 / 48 =) 205 inches diameter 1:48 scale (17 feet)

288 feet radius = (288 x 12 x 2 / 48 =) 144 inches diameter 1:48 scale (12 feet)

 

My double main has Ø108" and Ø99" curves, and looks OK with 18" (72') cars. In retrospect, I wish I had tried to use Ø117" and Ø108" instead, but that would have required using rather inflexible Atlas flex track, which I wanted to avoid.

 

Alex

Dang.......you know what.....I really appreciate the help guys but it sounds like o gauge should be the new G gauge with how much space you need it should be outside......pluss idk anyone that uses. G .....but I suppse with my limitations ill resort to 91 or 99 for now and when I get a huge space up it to 108......I guess I just never realized how much space the curves take up on a real train and that even in 1:48 scale its rediculouse

Was thinking about the realities stated above and my comments..........  and then blink!  I realized how many real trains do a complete circle loop as we do in the small model scale world (or even with a bit a straight track mixed in).   Very few,  if any I would think,  any full circles of curves in the 1:1 world.

 

Compromise works.........  my scale Big Boy looks great on 0-91 curves.   It looked quite funny on 0-72 but I got used to it back then too.

 

Mark

My fantasy outdoor layout would have a minimum 96" radius (O-192) or 384 scale feet -- sharp by prototype standards, but would keep those 89-foot cars over the track. Even going above 54" radius (O-108) can make a big difference in how trains look going through curves. On this stretch, the boilers on articulated locomotives stay over the tracks and long rolling stock looks great. To get the arc, we bent a long strip of plywood (the old "bent stick" method) and drew the first line, then a second line 4 1/2" out from that for the track centers. One of these years I'll pull out surveying lines and estimate the degree of curvature.